1 Peter 3:20

Previous message: BDAG 4th Edition Next message: 1 John Fellow s:I’m working ahead on my exegesis of 1 Peter and I’ve come to one of thestickiest passages in the Bible, I suspect: 1 Peter 3:18ff. While I’dappreciate any help you can offer on the difficulties of this passage,I’m particularly interested in the participle APEIQHSASIN in 3:20.Here it is in context:EN hWi KAI TOIS EN FULAKHi PNEUMASIN POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN, APEIQHSASINPOTE hOTE APEXEDECETO hH TOU QEUO MAKROQUMIA EN hHMERAIS NWEKATASKEUAZOMENHS KIBWTOU …Most translations and commentaries render APEIQHSASIN adjectivally: “tothe spirits in prison, *who* were disobedient….” APEIQHSASIN,however, is anarthrous, and Turner (3:153) comments that the lack of anarticle with this adjectival participle is “unclassical.” Elsewhere, hesays it isn’t “good Greek” (4:129).Wayne Grudem, however, argues that APEIQHSASIN isn’t adjectival at all. He cites BDF, section 270, where the basic “rule” is stated: anattributive adjective used with arthrous substantives when inpostposition *must* have its own article — unless it’s one of manyadjectives between the article and the noun (Sec. 269) or it’s asupplementary participle following a verb of perception or cognition(Sec. 416).He notes that there are no other examples of adjectival anarthrousparticiples with arthrous antecedents. The passages usually listed asexceptions usually have the anarthrous participle immediately followingits antecedent, not separated from it as in 1 Peter 3.(Grudem argues that in Luke 2:5; 16:14; Acts 24:24; and 1 Pet. 4:12 theparticiples function adverbially, though they are usually translatedloosely as adjectives.)Grudem then argues that APEIQHSASIN should be taken averbially andcircumstantially — e.g., “preached to the spirits in prison *when* theyformerly disobeyed.” The subsequent time reference (“when God’spatience waited”) doesn’t invalidate this interpretation, since thereare two or more time references in a row in passages such as Col. 3:7.No other commentator that I’ve seen takes this position, however. Yourevaluation would be greatly appreciated. If you think APEIQHSASINshould be taken adjectivally, could you please explain why you thinkthat.Your help would be greatly appreciated.Regards,John%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%John Barach (403) 317-1950Pastor, Trinity Reformed Church (URCNA)113 Stafford Blvd. N.Lethbridge, ABT1H 6E3

Previous message: 1 John Next message: 1 Peter 3:20: APEIQHSASIN At 4:49 PM -0600 5/1/00, John Barach wrote:>Fellow s:> >I’m working ahead on my exegesis of 1 Peter and I’ve come to one of the>stickiest passages in the Bible, I suspect: 1 Peter 3:18ff. While I’d>appreciate any help you can offer on the difficulties of this passage,>I’m particularly interested in the participle APEIQHSASIN in 3:20.> >Here it is in context:> >EN hWi KAI TOIS EN FULAKHi PNEUMASIN POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN, APEIQHSASIN>POTE hOTE APEXEDECETO hH TOU QEUO MAKROQUMIA EN hHMERAIS NWE>KATASKEUAZOMENHS KIBWTOU …> >Most translations and commentaries render APEIQHSASIN adjectivally: “to>the spirits in prison, *who* were disobedient….” APEIQHSASIN,>however, is anarthrous, and Turner (3:153) comments that the lack of an>article with this adjectival participle is “unclassical.” Elsewhere, he>says it isn’t “good Greek” (4:129).> >Wayne Grudem, however, argues that APEIQHSASIN isn’t adjectival at all.>He cites BDF, section 270, where the basic “rule” is stated: an>attributive adjective used with arthrous substantives when in>postposition *must* have its own article — unless it’s one of many>adjectives between the article and the noun (Sec. 269) or it’s a>supplementary participle following a verb of perception or cognition>(Sec. 416).> >He notes that there are no other examples of adjectival anarthrous>participles with arthrous antecedents. The passages usually listed as>exceptions usually have the anarthrous participle immediately following>its antecedent, not separated from it as in 1 Peter 3.> >(Grudem argues that in Luke 2:5; 16:14; Acts 24:24; and 1 Pet. 4:12 the>participles function adverbially, though they are usually translated>loosely as adjectives.)> >Grudem then argues that APEIQHSASIN should be taken averbially and>circumstantially — e.g., “preached to the spirits in prison *when* they>formerly disobeyed.” The subsequent time reference (“when God’s>patience waited”) doesn’t invalidate this interpretation, since there>are two or more time references in a row in passages such as Col. 3:7.> >No other commentator that I’ve seen takes this position, however. Your>evaluation would be greatly appreciated. If you think APEIQHSASIN>should be taken adjectivally, could you please explain why you think>that.> >Your help would be greatly appreciated.I don’t really want to get involved in this immediately, but I franklybelieve that the several problems involved with this passage were hashedout at great length in January of 1998 (sometime back in the lastcentury?): Jan 11-14, 1998 with subject-header: “POREUQEIS EKHRUXENAPEIQHSASIN in 1Peter3:19~20″Then, Jan 14-16, 1998 with subject-header: “POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN nocheinmal”, and finally, Jan 16-17, 1998 with subject-header: “Re: 1 P 3:20;APEIQHSASIN; Adj or adv?” You might consult the archives, and I think thiswould be the older archives prior to the move from our previous site at<majordomo at virginia.edu> to < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Previous message: 1 Peter 3:20: APEIQHSASIN Next message: sanctification-holiness Dear John,You cite 1 Pet 3:19 and part of 3:20:>EN hWi KAI TOIS EN FULAKHi PNEUMASIN POREUQEIS EKHRUXEN, APEIQHSASIN POTE>hOTE APEXEDECETO hH TOU QEUO MAKROQUMIA EN hHMERAIS NWE KATASKEUAZOMENHS>KIBWTOU … You ask about the participle APEIQHSASIN. Here is a section from anunpublished paper that I wrote on 1 Peter 3:18-4:6. The quotation coversthis point that Wayne Grudem raised about the participle APEIQHSASIN in3:20:Grudem has argued forcefully for a preaching by Christ’s spirit throughNoah in 3:19-20, asserting that the participle “disobedient” has anadverbial, temporal force: “when they disobeyed.”28 He admits that ananarthrous (not having the definite article) participle following the nounit modifies can be adjectival if the noun has two or more modifiers and thesense is unambiguous. But since the verb “preached” separates”disobedient” from “spirits,” Grudem finds an adjectival translation ofAPEIQHSASIN ambiguous.29 On the other hand, Noahic preaching seems foreignto the context; so are there arguments on behalf of an adjectivaltranslation of APEIQHSASIN? G. B. Winer states: Participles as attributives [adjectival], in as far as they have not entirely dropped the notion of time, are not treated in this case [in the use of the article] altogether like adjectives. They take the Article [sic] only when some relation already known or especially noteworthy (is qui, quippe qui) [“he who,” “indeed who”] is indicated, and consequently the idea expressed by the participle is to be made more prominent.30Winer goes on to say that “whether the Article is to be used or omittedbefore the Participle, depends sometimes on the subjective view of thewriter.”31 If APEIQHSASIN can be attributive, the secondary,circumstantial information it gives about the spirits sanctions omission ofthe article. Articular (having the definite article) nouns modified by subsequentanarthrous participles occur frequently in the NT. Although suchparticiples vary in exact usage, the ancient reader of Greek would normallyhave had little trouble discerning how the participle functioned when thecontext was otherwise clear. Translations of the Bible have rendered APEIQHSASIN at 3:20 with arelative pronoun (e.g., “who”) in a clause or with a demonstrative pronounsubject (e.g., “these”) in a new sentence.32 The translators believed thatthe participle could bear an attributive sense here. No translationconsulted took the participle as adverbial, evidently because the Greekdoes not require this intrepretation. Peter’s purposeful shifting of “spirits in prison” to the front of3:19 may account for the interposition of the verb “preached” between theattributive “disobedient” and its modificand “spirits.” If the word”disobedient” had directly followed “spirits,” it would have brought in towthe rest of 3:20, which modifies “disobedient” as a temporal clause. Thusthe words “going he preached” would not have come until the end of 3:20 ina most awkward sentence. Peter may have put “preached” where he did togive the reader the basic elements of his sentence (object, subject,predicate) before the rest of the modifiers. By its separation from “spirits in prison” APEIQHSASIN can have moreof the Greek participle’s substantive force: “to ones disobedient.”33 Lackof the Greek article may permit an indefiniteness to APEIQHSASIN thatnarrows the reference from all the spirits in prison to the Floodgeneration. An analogous English sentence would be: “For even to thepeople in prison going He preached, to ones having rebelled formerly in thedays of Louis XVI.” Context could distinguish those rebelling as a subsetof the prisoners emphasized due to the circumstances of the crime. OrPeter may have qualified the whole (spirits in prison) by the actions of apart (Flood generation).34 The spirits in prison were disobedient formerlywhile the ark was being built because many of their number were.28 Grudem, _1 Peter_, 233-36, citing BDF, sec. 269.29 A definite article with APEIQHSASIN would have so defined the spirits inprison that this group was just “the spirits in prison who were disobedientformerly when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah.” Seealso Grudem, _1 Peter_, 233-36.30 George B. Winer, _A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament_ (ed.Gottlieb Lünemann, trans. J. Henry Thayer, 7th ed., enl.; Andover, MA:Warren F. Draper, 1892) 134-35.31 Adjectival uses: Acts 13:32; 17:8; 23:27; Rom 2:27 (debatable); 1 Cor14:7; 2 Cor 3:2; Eph 6:16 (using the shorter reading); Heb 10:2; 1 Pet 4:12(debatable). Adverbial uses: 2 Cor 11:9; Acts 3:26; John 4:6, 39, 45; Mark16:10; John 1:36. Circumstantial uses: Luke 2;5; 16:14; Acts 17:27; 21:8.H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey state that a Greek participle is a “verbalsubstantive” and also a “verbal adjective: (_A Manual Grammar of the GreekNew Testament_ [New York: MacMillan, 1944] sec. 197). Whatever thegrammarians’ classification of usage in a particular case, the participleremains a verbal adjective.32 This is the case with the Vulgate and Peshitta, along with the Germanand French versions. It is so with the Geneva Bible of 1560, the KJV, NIV,NASB, NJB, NAB, NRSV, NJB, and RNEB, as well as several other translations(Moffatt, Goodspeed, Berkeley, New Century, Amplified, Young, Good News).John N. Darby simply translated “heretofore disobedient.”33 See n. 31 above.34 John S. Feinberg considers synecdoche here to be the desperate expedientof a theorist, but the grammar does not seem unnatural (“1 Peter 3:18-20,Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State,” _WTJ_ 48 (Fall 1986) 330-31.Yours,Harold Holmyard